Truth News Australia

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Always love listening to jesse. He is right on the mark

By Demi freeman on 2014 04 17 - 00:16:37
From the entry 'An in-depth chat with Governor Jesse Ventura'.

I find it hard to believe some still take these wiki articles seriously, most of it is opinion posted as fact, snopes.com uses the BBC as its source, for those of us who are media savvy we know not to trust these sources without first doing some homework, hence why people listen to this program. Wouldn’t it be better to know Kevin Annett exists, rubbish or not rather than not knowing this is going on at all, most of the listeners to this show can discern information and make their own informed decision, i think it is better to be presented with the information rather than casting it out as rubbish based on a few baseless articles.

ITCCS is very active publicly and many people involved in it have come now come forward, Joshua Lemmens and his group in western Canada, the Belgium network around Toos Niejenhuis, the Italian network around Francesco Zanardi. All of their interviews are posted at http://www.itccs.org peopl,e just need to do a bit of looking. The ITCCS isnt just Kevin Annett given groups like ITCCS Coventry are publishing their own newspaper now and organizing courts through the midlands of the UK.
No-one can really know who is who in a world full of deception however we should try to either support, or, if not at-least investigate thoroughly before rubbishing those who are trying to create real change

By Leah on 2014 04 08 - 12:28:37
From the entry 'Introducing the International Common Law Court of Justice'.

International Common Law Court of Justice? Oh please. That site is merely a blog of one mans ramblings.

Can’t believe you posted this utter garbage here.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_into_Crimes_of_Church_and_State
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/popebenedict.asp

By Andy on 2014 04 06 - 23:14:42
From the entry 'Introducing the International Common Law Court of Justice'.

International…..Court? Look at Hereward pushing global government.

By Not Surprised on 2014 03 31 - 23:09:43
From the entry 'Introducing the International Common Law Court of Justice'.

An even better Web site for the latest NIPCC report is http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

By Tom Harris on 2014 03 08 - 16:51:03
From the entry 'Professor Bob Carter on the latest NIPCC report'.

Dear Hereward
Some very good “logical” facts dug up!
You mentioned Bali Bombings in your podcast - Pls have a look back at that “war on terror’ bolstering example and particularly Keelty and the AFP’s role!

By Davo on 2014 03 04 - 10:35:08
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby is a political prisoner'.

This is not on any particular issue posted here but for those interested in global geopolitics go to http://tarpley.net/ Webster Tarpley is an historian and economist. He has a weekly radio show called world crisis radio. He has written a number of books and travels both nationally and internationally to give talks and has also debated his opponents on issues like 911 and gives an analysis on ww1 and ww2 ,how they were brought about.Another great author in my opinion is Ellen Brown who wrote Web of Debt http://www.webofdebt.com/ and The Public Bank Solution both books a must read for anyone wondering how our money works and the solution.

By Rob on 2014 02 21 - 12:36:53
From the entry 'Deconstructing mainstream news coverage on Syria with Mimi Al Laham'.

Josh Anonymous,
The last couple of months seem to have proven my point that this site is a waste of electrons. Your claim that anonymity doesn’t matter seems to be dispututed by Hereward Fenton in his reaction the “Anonymous” group and he then goes on to name a Josh Jackson, which I suspect we can surmise is you. If you are not concerned with names, do you require names and qualifications of those who are presented as “experts” on subjects with which you disagree?
I wonder if you have been able to do any research and discover that the moisture you claim is carried aloft by aircraft in their fuel is actualy there in the atmospherewhen the aircraft passes by? No, well I suggets you could put on your thinking cap and ponder.
LEONARD CLAMPETT

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 11 05 - 17:09:31
From the entry 'Chemtrails Revisited'.

Leonard Clampett,

Non-existence cannot be proven. Known fact.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

Fortunately, science does explain persistant contrails, so there is no need for an alternative (and much less plausible) explanation.

Regarding the video you linked, please pick one topic that you think should be discussed first. Give the time into the video for a reference.

Allow me to treat claims by Dane Wigington with the utmost skepticism. Recently he tried to measure sunlight UV values and failed badly - like on many issues before:
http://metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/

Wrong interpretation/calculation of measurements - again:
http://metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/#post-59145

BTW, why are you so obsessed with names? I could not care less about your identity. It has no relevance - either a claim is correct or it is not, no matter who made it.

By Josh on 2013 08 22 - 03:31:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

Rather than hiding behind anonymity, please advise who you are, what your experience is and what factual evidence you have to rebut the speaker in this video referred to below. As a denier you are claiming something does not exist, so it is up to you to prove your claim. As chemtrails exist, and can be seen by competent observers, I believe you have set yourself an impossible task. However, try to get on with it and prove your case.

http://projectcamelotportal.com/blog/1792-dane-wiggington-geoengineering-activist

Cheers,

LEONARD CLAMPETT
50 Harding Street
Enoggera 4051
Tel: 0412 068 186

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 08 21 - 08:54:33
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories